Hi, thought list members would be interested in this review of the times article some of you were discussing re: recycling. Sorry if this had already been posted. >X-Authentication-Warning: europe.std.com: daemon set sender to erf using -f >>Received: by rachel.clark.net (UUPC/extended 1.12r); > Wed, 24 Jul 1996 18:07:35 -0400 >Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 18:07:34 EDT >From: Peter Montague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Rachel #504: How They Lie, Part 2 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: Peter Montague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >=======================Electronic Edition======================== >. . >. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #504 . >. ---July 25, 1996--- . >. HEADLINES: . >. HOW THEY LIE, PART 2 . >. ========== . >. Environmental Research Foundation . >. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . >. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >. ========== . >. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . >. E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word HELP . >. in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . >. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com. . >. Permission to repost, reprint or quote is hereby granted. . >. Subscribe: send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >. with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. . >================================================================= > >HOW THEY LIE, PART 2 > >The NEW YORK TIMES leveled another biased, dishonest attack at >the nation's environmental protection programs last month. On >June 30, TIMES staff writer John Tierney made the front cover of >the Sunday TIMES MAGAZINE with the catchy title, "Recycling is >Garbage."[1] Tierney's piece is a typical example of work being >done now by the Good News industry, which set out 10 years ago to >prove that environmental problems don't exist, or have been >greatly exaggerated, and that any government effort to solve >those problems is a waste of money. Mr. Tierney's latest effort >is a classic amalgam of half-truths, outright fabrications, and >ideologically-biased reporting. > >As we saw last week, in the mid-1980s, companies that annually >pump out billions of pounds of poisonous wastes (and products) >started funding a small group of writers who have developed a set >of techniques for "proving" that government interference in the >free market --even for the purpose of protecting the environment >--is bad for everyone. As we will see, Mr. Tierney's work is a >typical product of the Good News industry. > >Writers for the Good News industry serve two masters. First, >they directly protect the interests of the corporations that >discharge billions of pounds of poisons into the public's air and >water each year. Secondly, they provide support for the >extremist libertarian view that any government intervention in >the free market is harmful and a waste. > >Serving the interests of the poisoners is straightforward. For >example, in the 1980s, Monsanto Corporation got a bad name for >polluting every square foot of the planet with noxious PCBs, >dioxin, and harmful pesticides. In truth, no single corporation >has ever done greater damage to the planet than Monsanto (though >Waste Management, Inc., or WMX, is challenging Monsanto's >record.) To rehabilitate its image, Monsanto has successfully >employed a good-cop, bad-cop strategy. Monsanto announced, for >example, that it is cutting its toxic waste emissions 90%, at >the same time donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to >support libertarian anti-environmental propagandists like >Elizabeth Whelan, some of whose work we examined briefly last >week. (See REHW #503). Monsanto is Ms. Whelan's biggest >supporter[2] and Ms. Whelan has made herself famous defending >Monsanto's products such as PCBs, the cancer-causing herbicide >2,4,5-T, the artificial sweetener Nutrasweet, and the company's >genetically-engineered hormone, rBGH, which is now being added >to much of the nation's milk supply (by injection into dairy >cows). (See REHW #483.) As we saw last week, Ms. Whelan's >contribution to the Good News industry is her bold discovery >that, if particular historical facts are inconvenient, >completely new ones can be manufactured and will be readily >accepted by the nation's media. This technique was pioneered in >Nazi Germany and perfected in the former Soviet Union but has >recently been developed under free market conditions by the Good >News industry. John Tierney of the TIMES uses it repeatedly, as >we shall see.) > >While Monsanto's approach keeps the public confused (Are they >good? Are they bad? Aren't they really trying to do better?), >Monsanto has quietly developed an entirely new line of >genetically-engineered creations, products it has begun to >broadcast directly into the environment while denying that any >harm will ensue. (Monsanto has repeated similar denials for >decades.) The corporation's pledge to cut its toxic wastes 90% >is long overdue, but it is also beside the point. It is this >firm's PRODUCTS, not its WASTES, that have covered the earth with >poisons and soon will disrupt the planet's ecosystems with >genetically-finagled forms of life. Good News writers like >Elizabeth Whelan serve as a cover for the main source of harm >from a corporation like Monsanto, which is its perfectly-legal >pursuit of the purposes for which it was created: consolidation >of wealth and power, promoting dangerous products, eluding >liability and passing as many costs as possible on to the public. > >Secondly, of course, writers like Elizabeth Whelan and John >Tierney serve a purely ideological master. Most Good News >writers are dedicated to the extremist libertarian proposition >that government's only valid role is to enforce private property >laws, to establish conditions under which the free market can >operate without restriction. Monsanto broadcasting >genetically-finagled creatures into the environment, while >insisting that nothing can go wrong, is the libertarian model. >Government sits by while Monsanto populates the environment with >forms of life that the Creator saw fit to not make, and the >public will be required to "prove harm" before government will >lift a finger to protect the environment as it was originally >created. By that time, of course, it will be too late to put >things right. > >Mr. Tierney's work in the June 30 TIMES fits the mold of the Good >News writer perfectly: it is a tapestry of lies, half-truths, >distortions, and misinformation, woven together by a thread of >libertarian ideological bias. > >Examples abound. For instance, Mr. Tierney's section on plastic >could have been written by the Chemical Manufacturers Association >or the American Plastics Council: "Plastic packaging and >fast-food containers may seem wasteful, but they actually save >resources and reduce trash. The typical household in Mexico City >buys fewer packaged goods than an American household, but it >produces one-third more garbage, chiefly because Mexicans buy >fresh foods in bulk and throw away large portions that are >unused, spoiled, or stale." In this view, plastics are an >unmitigated good and Mexico should adopt them. Mr. Tierney >forgets to mention that spoiled or stale foods, when thrown away, >harm no one. The Earth re-absorbs them and turns them back into >nutrients for the next generation of plants. Plastics, however, >are an entirely different story. > >Because plastics degrade so slowly (some will take an estimated >400 years to disappear, even in bright sunlight), the world's >surface is becoming littered with plastic bottles, wrappers, >lids, rope, cigarette lighters, six-pack rings, jugs, gloves, >caps, sheets, bags, sponges, boxes, handles, knobs, toys, and so >on. This is the true cost of our devotion to the free marketing >of plastic. Will these things improve life in Mexico? Earlier >this year I had occasion to visit the village of San Carlos, on >Mexico's Pacific coast, where American-style goods are now coming >into widespread use. Already the entire town and surrounding >countryside are pocked with thousands of ragged clumps of plastic >rubbish blown across the desert by Pacific winds, garish plastic >intrusions into a traditional setting. Families in San Carlos >burn their garbage in open heaps which perpetually emit sickening >fumes, toxic gases that suffuse this fishing village with the >acrid reek of smoldering plastic. This is not progress. > >Where I live in Maryland, the Chesapeake Bay is filled with >thousands of tons of plastic garbage. Along the entire 8100-mile >shoreline of the Bay, the reeds and grasses are interlaced and >layered with broken pieces of styrofoam cups and plates, >polyethylene bottles, polypropylene rope, nylon fishing line and >netting, PVC pipe, and all manner of unidentifiable chunks of >colored plastic bottles, lids, bags, sheets, toys, and >who-knows-what. Hurricane Bertha passed through a couple of >weeks ago, dislodging tons of plastic from among the reeds, much >of it now still floating on the surface in quiet coves. It will >eventually be deposited on the shores again, and will be >re-mobilized the next time a storm comes through --an eternal, >floating garbage dump of indestructible plastic rubbish, a >permanent eyesore, a perpetual desecration of the nation's >largest estuary, and a continual, ongoing hazard to threatened >wildlife throughout the Bay. > >Not only are plastics making the entire world resemble a huge, >ill-kept garbage dump --seriously degrading the visual >environment, making an anti-social public statement just like >graffiti --plastics in the oceans also pose life-and-death >challenges to turtles, birds, mammals and fish.[3] No ocean >waters are exempt.[4] Even the remotest parts of the planet, >islands in the arctic seas, are littered with plastic, an >omnipresent reminder of corporate power and a rigid devotion to >unfettered free markets. While they are large, these chunks of >plastic endanger amphibians, birds, and mammals who mistake them >for food. As they break down into microscopic dimensions, these >plastics become a hazard to fin fish, lodging in their gills. > >Plastics are a major source of dioxins, perhaps the major source. >And of course medical researchers have identified clusters of >disease in humans living near the petrochemical plants where >plastics are manufactured. (See REHW #168.) Recently, it has >been learned that many plastic products exude chemicals that >disrupt the hormones of reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish and >mammals, including humans. (See REHW #501.) No doubt about it, >plastics make living things, including people, sick, and they >kill. > >In his paean to plastic, Mr. Tierney neglected to mention any of >these serious, intractable problems created by the >plastics-manufacturing corporations exercising their free-market >"right" to dump their anti-social and life-destroying wares on >all of us. Plastics are a kind of corporate graffiti celebrating >the consolidation of wealth and power, and the arrogant >human-centeredness, which, together, lie at the heart of the >libertarian vision. No wonder Mr. Tierney esteems plastics so. > >Good news writers can't ever pass up an opportunity to re-write >history. Indeed, that is their main purpose for writing. For >example, Mr. Tierney says, "Today's landfills for municipal trash >are filled mostly with innocuous materials like paper, yard >waste, and construction debris. They contain small amounts of >hazardous wastes, like lead and mercury, but studies have found >that these poisons stay trapped inside the mass of garbage even >in the old, unlined dumps that were built before today's >stringent regulations." > >This is a stunning example of history re-written to serve >libertarian ideology. The message is that today's "stringent >regulations" for landfills are not needed because poisons stay >trapped inside landfills. This would be a powerful argument for >getting government off the backs of the dumpers, if it were true. >But it's not. The U.S. Superfund list of contaminated sites >contains 184 municipal solid waste landfills, all leaking >dangerously.[5] Municipal dumps contain 1% to 2% >legally-hazardous chemicals, but 1% of a huge quantity of waste >represents a substantial danger. And all evidence indicates that >landfills eventually leak their toxic contents into the >surrounding environment. To prevent toxic wastes from leaking >out of municipal dumps, we would have to repeal the second law of >thermodynamics. Since the laws of physics cannot be repealed, >libertarian writers like John Tierney must content themselves >with merely re-writing history, trying to trick the public into >believing that the dangerous is benign, and that government >needn't concern itself with recycling garbage because landfilling >it is safe. > >As the NEW YORK TIMES said in an editorial July 19, 1996: "If >journalists lie or publications knowingly publish deceptively >incomplete stories, then readers who become aware of the >deception will ever after ask the most damaging of all questions: >How do I know you are telling me the whole truth as best you can >determine it THIS TIME?" > --Peter Montague > (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) > >=============== >[1] John Tierney, "Recycling is Garbage," NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE >June 30, 1996, pgs. 24-27, 44, 48, 51, 53. > >[2] "Public Interest Pretenders," CONSUMER REPORTS Vol. 59, No. 5 >(1994), pgs. 316-320. > >[3] Michael Weisskopf, "Plastic reaps a grim harvest in the >oceans of the world," SMITHSONIAN (March, 1988), pgs. 59-66. And >see, for example, "David G. Shaw and Robert H. Day, "Colour-and >Form-dependent Loss of Plastic Micro-debris from the North >Pacific Ocean," MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN Vol. 28, No. 1 (1994), >pgs. 39-43. > >[4] David J. Slip and Harry R. Burton IV, "Accumulation of >Fishing Debris, Plastic Litter, and Other Artefacts on Heard and >Macquarie Islands in the Southern Ocean," ENVIRONMENTAL >CONSERVATION Vol. 18, No. 3 (Autumn, 1991), pgs. 249-254. And, >finally, see Christopher C. Joyner and Scot Frew, "Plastic >Pollution in the Marine Environment," OCEAN DEVELOPMENT AND >INTERNATIONAL LAW Vol. 22, No. 1 (1991), pgs. 33-69. > >[5] Data on Superfund from Alex Kalinowski of U.S. Environmental >Protection Agency's Superfund Docket; phone (703) 603-9096. > >Descriptor terms: john tierney; new york times; recycling; >municipal solid waste; landfilling; msw; libertarianism; >monsanto; elizabeth whelan; wmx; acsh; american council on >science and health; genetic engineering; plastic; mexico; oceans; >wildlife; dioxin; > >################################################################ > NOTICE >Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic >version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge >even though it costs our organization considerable time and >money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this >service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible >contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or >$500.00). Please send your contribution to: Environmental >Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. > --Peter Montague, Editor >################################################################ > e ya, -michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gcccd.cc.ca.us/grossmont/FacultyPages/GoldenM/MGolden.html Michael Golden Institute for the study of: Organic Evolution and the Equitable Distribution of Wealth Department of Biology Grossmont College 8800 Grossmont College Drive El Cajon, CA 92020 619.465.1700 x332 VOICE MAIL: x3064
